Posts by Rachel Stewart36

Drew Lee7 said:Transgender people are just sick. Honestly, they’re trying to be something they aren't, and it makes no sense. Why even go down that road?

So, let's talk about this whole "gender" debate. It’s basically just a massive argument started by feminists and LGBT groups who refuse to admit they have an identity crisis. They basically cooked up this entire concept of "gender" just to give their own issues a fancy new label and justify them. Isn't that just convenient?

Honestly, your whole take is hilarious. I’ve got nothing to add except my own two cents: the entire concept of gender was basically cooked up by feminists, and nowadays, it’s mostly just being shoved down our throats by the LGBT group.

Look, gender identities haven't exactly been some unique, one-of-a-kind thing throughout history or even in the present day. But just because they've always existed doesn't mean we need to go around reinventing the wheel. Why try to make something new when the reality is already right there?

Care to elaborate on that little observation? And while you're at it, maybe define what exactly you mean by the whole "gender identity" thing.

Sandra Barrett4 said:maybe it's because a person isn't just driven by hormones; they also have intellect, willpower, and plenty of other unknown factors at play.

It was more of a "quasi-rhetorical" question anyway. But hey, thanks for the input.

goldenpuma84 said:Interesting thread. Humans are just transient organic beings with an expiration date. Reproduction is part of the deal. We evolved as complex multicellular organisms with long development periods to ensure genetic diversity, which led to the emergence of males way before vertebrates or mammals even existed... The ultimate game is fighting extinction through offspring. In a sense, that’s every human's primary directive. It's how we survive even after we're gone. That’s why picking a partner is everything. So much depends on who you choose...

How do women actually pick their guys? They need someone bold, confident, ambitious, funny, and just the right amount of cocky... To put it another way, my coworker—who’s incredibly smart and driven—told me her man has to be an active force, someone who actually knows what he wants out of life. He needs to be like a massive oak tree; she wants to be the one being swept off her feet, so he provides that steady shade while drawing strength from deep roots...

How do guys actually pick their partners? Sure, personality matters, but let's be real—it usually starts with looks. It’s simple biology; they can fertilize a lot of women in a short window, so they take their chances... Plus, there's that constant drive to compete, to test themselves against other men, and that innate respect for a hierarchy with one guy at the top...

For most women, marriage usually takes precedence over their career, mostly because they expect their partner to be the one providing the resources for the family...

For a guy, his career carries just as much weight as his marriage... a major setback at work is hard to make up for with "satisfaction" at home...

This stuff isn't taught in school. It’s not even about culture... it’s just baked into who we are...

At the end of the day, we're all descendants of both sexes, so everyone carries a mix of traits to some degree. But usually, most women lean into those traditional feminine roles in public, and most men stick to the masculine ones. It makes you think that the whole concept of "gender" is mostly built around a small minority... since the vast majority of people are pretty settled in an identity that aligns with social expectations and their own basic instincts—it's not like they just fell from Venus or Mars or anything... which basically means the majority ends up trying to fit themselves into the criteria set by the minority.

Sure, a lot of stuff is just cultural conditioning. Like, why is pink even considered a girl's color? But the truth is, plenty of things aren't—especially the fundamental stuff that actually defines us, like how aggressive or competitive we are, or our core values...

A few years back, there was this story about a boy in Canada born with some physical complications. They ended up surgically removing his penis and "constructing" a vagina instead. Since he was so young, they raised him strictly as a girl—all the usual stereotypes, playing with dolls, wearing pink dresses, being told not to fight because "girls don't do that"... You'd think there would be resistance, right? Even though he felt something was deeply wrong during puberty, he still went along with the identity forced on him... Fast forward to today, and that young man is a broken shell of a person, struggling with severe mental health issues because he feels he was robbed of ever being able to live out his true nature...

Sex as a biological factor and gender as a social construct usually line up. Honestly, it feels like "gender" is just a term cooked up to be politically correct about people who have traits from the other sex. I'm not talking about little kids playing with trucks, but more about the roles played during the actual mating process, which leads to real differences later on when it comes to things like raising kids...

Feminists can deny it all they want, but they’re basically just trying to override biology with social trends. At the end of the day, beneath all our modern civilization, the human brain is still wired like some ancient hunter-gatherer... Seeing how many young, college-educated women I run into daily, it's pretty clear I'm not the one who's out of touch...

I wouldn't be so quick to make sweeping claims like that. Looking at people and the world around me, I haven't really seen massive variations in those "facts" based on gender. It feels more like certain groups just have different "modes." Let me complicate things a bit—I'm male (biologically speaking), identify as a man, and I'm straight, yet my default mode is pretty "feminine"—non-aggressive, passive, indirect, and super focused on emotional harmony. That said, I switch to the "male" mode whenever it makes sense—you know, situational awareness. So, how do you explain my passivity given my testosterone levels (which are pretty obvious from my physique)? I think things are a little more nuanced than what you're suggesting. But hey, just my two cents. 😉

hiddenhound3, a total 🙏 for this whole thing—specifically this part here:

hiddenhound3 said:I believe it all comes down to perception—to our individual sensitivity and our psychological defense mechanisms. It is an undeniable fact that there are certain people who lack the capacity for balanced communication; they barge into your space, interrupting you mid-sentence (a crude form of penetration). Then there are the trolls (which applies perfectly to the wild west of the American internet), those who refuse to engage with the actual subject matter and instead choose to analyze their interlocutor. This analysis is usually amateurish and fundamentally flawed, as their "psychoanalysis" is merely a projection of their own flaws onto others. They introduce irrelevant elements, drift into nonsense and illogic, and adopt an offensive, aggressive stance. This is essentially invading someone else's territory without permission—it is reckless, malicious, and driven by a desperate need to be right rather than a pursuit of truth. It is, quite simply, a pure manifestation of the ego. 🙏

I have always appreciated your approach (even during the times we disagreed), because you respect boundaries. I have never felt contempt, disrespect, or even the slightest threat that you might cross the line of decency or politeness, even though I know I can be quite aggravating at times 🤣. I believe such behavior stems from a deep sense of self-respect and an awareness of one's own integrity. (Of course, there is a difference when one does this intentionally—approaching boundaries as a sort of game, which I find can be unnecessarily cruel).

So, how should one deal with a crude penetrator? My view is that a person does not need to bend more than they wish to, provided they can control their own concavity. Only those lacking self-control unconsciously become victims of convexity. Others provide a flat, smooth, and cold surface that acts as a mirror to the penetrator. The aggressor remains unaware that they are merely seeing themselves reflected; they continue to believe they are observing another person, which is why they project their own character deviations onto them.

In conclusion, this is a matter of immaturity, lack of awareness, and sheer stupidity (from which evil is born in a metaphysical sense). Therefore, it is best to avoid such individuals entirely—much like avoiding mindless infantry—because you can only end up hurt. Once they finally grow up and get their heads screwed on straight, they will stop acting this way. Using a "mirror" only works if you notice a glimmer of lucidity in the person, but that usually leads to shattering their narcissistic self-image, which is incredibly painful. To escape that pain, they will either flee or double down with even greater force. You are left with two options: flight or victory at any cost, regardless of the casualties or the purpose. Both paths involve adrenaline and a level of behavior that is purely animalistic.

The point of this post is this: every victim eventually finds their killer.

Oh, and I nearly forgot to mention: I don't believe this is strictly tied to gender. Men can be just as spineless as women can be incredibly bold.

hiddenhound3 said:I believe it all comes down to perception—to our individual sensitivity and our psychological defense mechanisms. It is an undeniable fact that there are certain people who lack the capacity for balanced communication; they barge into your space, interrupting you mid-sentence (a crude form of penetration). Then there are the trolls (which applies perfectly to the wild west of the American internet), those who refuse to engage with the actual subject matter and instead choose to analyze their interlocutor. This analysis is usually amateurish and fundamentally flawed, as their "psychoanalysis" is merely a projection of their own flaws onto others. They introduce irrelevant elements, drift into nonsense and illogic, and adopt an offensive, aggressive stance. This is essentially invading someone else's territory without permission—it is reckless, malicious, and driven by a desperate need to be right rather than a pursuit of truth. It is, quite simply, a pure manifestation of the ego. 🙏

I have always appreciated your approach (even during the times we disagreed), because you respect boundaries. I have never felt contempt, disrespect, or even the slightest threat that you might cross the line of decency or politeness, even though I know I can be quite aggravating at times 🤣. I believe such behavior stems from a deep sense of self-respect and an awareness of one's own integrity. (Of course, there is a difference when one does this intentionally—approaching boundaries as a sort of game, which I find can be unnecessarily cruel).

So, how should one deal with a crude penetrator? My view is that a person does not need to bend more than they wish to, provided they can control their own concavity. Only those lacking self-control unconsciously become victims of convexity. Others provide a flat, smooth, and cold surface that acts as a mirror to the penetrator. The aggressor remains unaware that they are merely seeing themselves reflected; they continue to believe they are observing another person, which is why they project their own character deviations onto them.

In conclusion, this is a matter of immaturity, lack of awareness, and sheer stupidity (from which evil is born in a metaphysical sense). Therefore, it is best to avoid such individuals entirely—much like avoiding mindless infantry—because you can only end up hurt. Once they finally grow up and get their heads screwed on straight, they will stop acting this way. Using a "mirror" only works if you notice a glimmer of lucidity in the person, but that usually leads to shattering their narcissistic self-image, which is incredibly painful. To escape that pain, they will either flee or double down with even greater force. You are left with two options: flight or victory at any cost, regardless of the casualties or the purpose. Both paths involve adrenaline and a level of behavior that is purely animalistic.

The point of this post is this: every victim eventually finds their killer.

Oh, and I nearly forgot to mention: I don't believe this is strictly tied to gender. Men can be just as spineless as women can be incredibly bold.

In my opinion, instead of this "either/or" thing, we're talking about "simultaneity"—meaning, it's not that both *can* be, it's that they fundamentally *are*.

wearyhawk83 said:When you’re fully checked in and giving 100%—whether you're the one leading or following—that whole sense of "self" just melts away. You lose track of your daily grind, and even the act itself stops feeling like two separate things happening. Honestly, the more we grow up and understand how life actually works, the more we realize that true fulfillment comes when we stop playing roles. We aren't just participants anymore; we become the experience itself. Perfection isn't about the people involved; it's about the flow. Nature tries to show us this all the time, from the way faces reflect our energy to that deeper, abstract level where we finally sync up perfectly with someone else's vibe—or even our own—to create one shared reality.

If I'm reading you right, you think "penetration itself" merges both forms? Like, knowing another person is a form of penetration, but since all knowing is self-knowing, it's really just about "opening" oneself to oneself and to the other (being the penetrated). 🤔

It’s honestly hilarious when people refuse to actually engage with the topic—instead, they just resort to nitpicking based on total logical fallacies—all because they can't wrap their heads around what was actually said. 🙄 Enjoy yourself, man; I'm done.

Look, this whole thread is about how we perceive shape—basically, the psychological impact a form has on the mind. We’re talking about the symbolism of form here, and that shouldn't just be limited to "physical" stuff; it includes the way someone acts or moves—the "form of action." We've been digging deep into the "invisible boundaries" of concave versus convex, while you're out here treating external form as some kind of "symptom"—when, in reality, it's just the outward manifestation of what's happening inside. Get it now? 😉

I find what Lisa Hernandez3 is saying about the possibility of shifting forms pretty interesting—though I wouldn't call them "shifts" so much as their simultaneous existence. She even threw "color aspect" into the mix. It’d be cool to hear some thoughts on the interplay between form and power. 👍

Anyway, back to this "shifting forms" thing. Take a woman wearing a tight, short, low-cut evening dress—you know, those classic little black dresses 😁 that show off plenty of skin. It makes me wonder: isn't that actually an attempt to "escape" the interpretation forced upon her? That idea that she's purely a concave form—undefined, vague, something to be conquered, passive, weak... things women are often identified with (and sometimes even accept themselves)? By highlighting her body, she’s essentially emphasizing "clarity" of shape, and clarity is a convex (masculine) trait. So, you could say she’s imitating convex qualities to claim them for herself. By presenting herself through the "clarity" of her physicality, she effectively buffers against being perceived through that concave lens. In doing so, she achieves a sort of coexistence of both forms—reaching an equilibrium.

If you buy that logic, men are basically doing the same thing. As representatives of the convex form (clear and defined), they hide their bodies (don't show much skin) to mimic the effects of concavity (the undefined, the unknown). Maybe the takeaway is that this "fluidity" of form—rather than them being mutually exclusive—is just how things naturally work. I mean, just look at the male physique: the torso is basically an upside-down triangle (broad shoulders, narrow waist), while the hair in the pelvic region forms a triangle pointing up; with women, it's the opposite (wide hips and narrow waist create an upward triangle, while the hair there creates a downward one).

Lisa Hernandez3 said:I suppose I "penetrate" quite frequently—perhaps because I tend to shy away from the idea of manipulating others by being the one who is penetrated. To penetrate feels more transparent—and I’m not necessarily trying to be moralistic here—it’s just more defined; it has a specific shape and stance. It isn't surprising that for centuries, there has been all this talk regarding female "mysticism." While I don't subscribe to the idea of some inherent mystery within women—at least not in the way it has been historically or culturally framed—following the line of thought sketched by Rebecca Scott3—which is essentially the demonization of women—I do believe that mystifying the feminine principle is quite effective. Men often lean on that very mystification when they are trying to pursue a woman they desire. Emphasizing conversation based on the premise of I am male and you are female is also just another version of this shifting game of penetrating and allowing oneself to be penetrated. It's similar to temporary submissiveness, or perhaps pulling back, just to consciously counteract the primary idea of penetration. It might be about allowing someone onto your territory just so the roles can eventually flip, allowing the guest to be penetrated instead. In reality, even though it's historically clear that phallic culture is dominant—and that it has primarily subjugated women politically—all this power play is built around a respect for strength. This starts with reproductive strength and moves into a certain psychological strength generated by a woman's specific biological makeup. That sense of integrity, which truly seems to radiate through penetration, is (perhaps) a reaction to the wholeness and purposefulness of the female biological construct. It reflects our cultural reverence for birth and motherhood, the umbilical cord of every person, and our connection to the world. Still, these are all relatively archaic and archetypal notions. Today, we probably need to deal with simpler principles of attraction and rejection based on physical and social adequacy—almost following economic criteria. Nowadays, everyone seems to be trying to penetrate, because, as some sociologists argue, the battlefield has expanded into the psychological realm (identity). Perhaps the distinction between the penetrator and the penetrated is becoming unnecessary or outdated. Maybe it’s less about penetration now and more about clicking—or mutual clicking. Or perhaps it's about an upgrade (an expansion of integrity?) for both genders, who are both operating within the same system of producing new meanings for goods—both human and other forms of capital.

Over on the LJS forums, there was a discussion started by a male user asking women about the sensation of being penetrated. On the Psychology board, the concept of transgender identity was briefly touched upon.
Transgender identity itself isn't particularly interesting to most people (though I find it fascinating in terms of social roles), which is evident from the response to the topic. However, reading what Rebecca Scott3 writes again, maybe this is the ecology of a new discipline for integrating masculine and feminine principles—in the sense of providing an "asexual" support to natural processes.

So if penetration is this clearly defined process of expanding integrity, maybe it reflects male "simplicity"—on the flip side, if being penetrated is this shapeless, mystical thing, maybe that's where the female "complexity" comes from? It’s a pattern that bleeds right into how we view their sexuality.
You can explain away male directness by looking at how much their primal urges actually line up with what society expects—basically, guys get a free pass to satisfy those urges without a second thought (think master keys vs. locks). But things change when you look at women; there isn't that same "directness." Since the rules of the game are different for them, women have to build these whole elaborate systems of "illusions and detours" just to get what they want.

Lisa Hernandez3 said:I suppose I "penetrate" quite frequently—perhaps because I tend to shy away from the idea of manipulating others by being the one who is penetrated. To penetrate feels more transparent—and I’m not necessarily trying to be moralistic here—it’s just more defined; it has a specific shape and stance. It isn't surprising that for centuries, there has been all this talk regarding female "mysticism." While I don't subscribe to the idea of some inherent mystery within women—at least not in the way it has been historically or culturally framed—following the line of thought sketched by Rebecca Scott3—which is essentially the demonization of women—I do believe that mystifying the feminine principle is quite effective. Men often lean on that very mystification when they are trying to pursue a woman they desire. Emphasizing conversation based on the premise of I am male and you are female is also just another version of this shifting game of penetrating and allowing oneself to be penetrated. It's similar to temporary submissiveness, or perhaps pulling back, just to consciously counteract the primary idea of penetration. It might be about allowing someone onto your territory just so the roles can eventually flip, allowing the guest to be penetrated instead. In reality, even though it's historically clear that phallic culture is dominant—and that it has primarily subjugated women politically—all this power play is built around a respect for strength. This starts with reproductive strength and moves into a certain psychological strength generated by a woman's specific biological makeup. That sense of integrity, which truly seems to radiate through penetration, is (perhaps) a reaction to the wholeness and purposefulness of the female biological construct. It reflects our cultural reverence for birth and motherhood, the umbilical cord of every person, and our connection to the world. Still, these are all relatively archaic and archetypal notions. Today, we probably need to deal with simpler principles of attraction and rejection based on physical and social adequacy—almost following economic criteria. Nowadays, everyone seems to be trying to penetrate, because, as some sociologists argue, the battlefield has expanded into the psychological realm (identity). Perhaps the distinction between the penetrator and the penetrated is becoming unnecessary or outdated. Maybe it’s less about penetration now and more about clicking—or mutual clicking. Or perhaps it's about an upgrade (an expansion of integrity?) for both genders, who are both operating within the same system of producing new meanings for goods—both human and other forms of capital.

Over on the LJS forums, there was a discussion started by a male user asking women about the sensation of being penetrated. On the Psychology board, the concept of transgender identity was briefly touched upon.
Transgender identity itself isn't particularly interesting to most people (though I find it fascinating in terms of social roles), which is evident from the response to the topic. However, reading what Rebecca Scott3 writes again, maybe this is the ecology of a new discipline for integrating masculine and feminine principles—in the sense of providing an "asexual" support to natural processes.

It feels like this "role-swapping game" is mostly a woman's domain. When she's the one being penetrated, she’s the one conquered—but if she ends up "devouring" the partner, she takes over the lead entirely. Men, though? Society forces them into the role of the penetrator—otherwise, they're basically labeled useless—and socializes them to think that active engagement is the *only* way to conquer. It's rare to find a guy who actually knows how to play both sides like you're describing. Maybe patriarchy is just a man's "impotent" response to that female "dominance." If that's the case, it'll stick around until men are finally allowed to be that ambivalent, too.

So, I'm an engineer. Guess I should've used some actual systems theory terminology to make my point—at least from what I know of it. Might have actually closed the gap between our two perspectives if I had.
Besides, even engineers need to tap into "emotions"—unless you’re just a mindless drone. Real engineering requires creativity, inspiration, and imagination... which are mostly "irrational" territory anyway.
Anyway, moving off-topic—anyone know what kind of penalties we're looking at? Happy holidays, I guess. 😉

Missed that one. I'm juggling five things at once right now—my brain is basically fried😉

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, alongside the natural right to choose, there’s also this thing called "consequences"... which is exactly what everyone tends to forget the moment their choice doesn't turn out the way they wanted.

Take your architect and welder example... at some point, both made a choice. One chose to go to a top-tier design school, and the other chose to finish vocational training after the 10th grade. This is particularly pronounced here because, over the last 50 years, our society has essentially provided free education to everyone. Or take the case of a woman being abused by her husband... her choice would be either to stay and hope he changes—getting a certain sense of security in the process—or to leave him, which stops the abuse but simultaneously sacrifices the stability her life with him provides. Rationally, you'd pick the first option... but then again, I've never really viewed women as rational beings.

I think you’re totally misreading my point. I’m not talking about some "concrete" right to choose; I’m talking about freedom within a static-dynamic social structure. I mean the actual possibility of exercising that freedom while playing by the "rules of the game" the system sets. Your example—saying you can't choose to buy a Ferrari or a Porsche, but you *can* choose what to do with the cash you actually have—is just looking at freedom through a narrow lens. You're missing the "higher order" logic based on the abstract definition of freedom I'm discussing. Donna Garcia42 actually touched on this in post # 172 when she talked about unequal starting positions. Looking at your exchange with her, it seems you're still approaching the concept of choice (which is synonymous with freedom in my terms) from a much lower level of abstraction, so I doubt there's any point in continuing this debate.😉

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, alongside the natural right to choose, there’s also this thing called "consequences"... which is exactly what everyone tends to forget the moment their choice doesn't turn out the way they wanted.

Take your architect and welder example... at some point, both made a choice. One chose to go to a top-tier design school, and the other chose to finish vocational training after the 10th grade. This is particularly pronounced here because, over the last 50 years, our society has essentially provided free education to everyone. Or take the case of a woman being abused by her husband... her choice would be either to stay and hope he changes—getting a certain sense of security in the process—or to leave him, which stops the abuse but simultaneously sacrifices the stability her life with him provides. Rationally, you'd pick the first option... but then again, I've never really viewed women as rational beings.

Chatterbox Quote

Morgan Cook10 said:Don't get me wrong—I’ve got nothing against determinism or fatalism. Call it whatever you want. But the problem is that if you lean too hard into either one, the whole concept of "guilt" just evaporates. You have to be careful with those terms; they aren't exactly great tools for building any kind of functional society.

Look, I honestly think stereotypes can be pretty useful because they’re usually just a buildup of actual information over time. There’s this one line I came across that really stuck with me: Expect the clichés, and you’ll never have to deal with the disappointment.

Rationality is basically defined as being stripped of all emotion. In a perfect world, the most logical choice would be one completely devoid of feeling. But let’s be real—in the actual world, I allow for some emotional input, just to a certain extent. I draw the line at letting people use their feelings as an excuse to dodge accountability for what they've done. I'm big on using real-world analogies to make a point, so here's one for you: you can't expect a woman to sit there and play the victim after her husband has cheated on her fifteen times.🤷 Men tend to be way more logical about this stuff... once a woman cheats on them for the first time, some guys might let it slide, but most will just walk away and never look back.

And that’s only true by definition; in reality, every single human action is conditioned by emotion or impulse to some degree. Consciousness—the intellect—is inextricably linked to will (which is essentially driven by emotion). Any attempt to mechanically strip that organic unity apart just results in a broken outcome.

Drew Lee7 said:That’s just how it goes as you get older, sweetie. I mean, what else is a married woman who just gave birth supposed to talk about? Some guys she met at a club the night before? 🙄

Look, honey, maybe grow up a little first before you start complaining. Or don't, I don't really care. 🤷

Oh, please, you've got it wrong. Because feminists know they have the right to choose.

Now, this is a woman who knows how to think. 👍

Though getting rid of stereotypes is easy. That's mostly just folklore. People who believe in them actually know they're illusions. But projections... that's the real mess. And that's much harder.

I'm not talking about just being aware that choice exists—I'm talking about how messy and difficult it actually is to exercise that freedom.

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, this is a pretty heavy PDF, even if the subject matter itself isn't exactly groundbreaking. I was just throwing out a specific example to push back against that one sentence I totally disagree with.🤷
You’re claiming that the "right to choose" doesn't actually exist... which just isn't true. If you really want to know where I stand: having a choice is the default setting for life. Everything else we deal with is just various attempts to chip away at that freedom, one way or another. Sometimes it's a subtle nudge, sometimes it's a sledgehammer, but it's always an attempt to limit our options.

Maybe read a bit closer and catch the context next time. I never said the right to choose doesn't exist. Of course it does, it's just heavily conditional. A person's actual freedom depends on a mountain of factors: wealth, looks, education, bank account, social circles, family background, soft skills... Just look at the "privileges" handed to a high-end architect versus a local welder; compare what's available to one vs. the other. The first guy has a vastly larger—though still limited—range of freedom to basically engineer his own reality.

Your idea that "choice is the natural state while everything else is an attempt to reduce it" only works if we're talking about how things *should* be. But looking at "how things actually are"? It's just a long history of the masses fighting for the crumbs of freedom that the "oligarchs" deign to toss down—that's pretty much the standard human story. The notion that people were once truly free and now everyone is equally trapped is absurd. Nowadays, we just have total freedom of "consumption." Actually, that freedom is practically mandatory. For most people, "freedom" is nothing more than a well-packaged illusion.

Jeffrey Rivera2 said:It seems animals have more rights than people.

Ironic, sure, but honestly? Often true. This "civilization" we think we're living in is mostly just a polished illusion. We call ourselves a civilization, but really, it's a system built on the rights of the strongest. Rights and freedoms are mostly just convenient words on paper—usually reserved for a tiny, hand-picked minority.

And here I was thinking this was actually a legit PDF—unlike that mess from Lyles. 🙄

It’s funny how everyone loves debating "rights" and "freedoms"—as if they’re some universal guarantee—while totally ignoring the fact that these things are basically just nominal labels. Honestly? It’s more accurate to call them privileges, since whether you actually get to use them depends on a massive pile of external factors. Treating "freedom of choice" as a default setting for everyone is just delusional. Freedom is really just the flip side of power, and we all know how power actually gets handed out in a stratified society. You can talk about feminism all day, but unless you start from "how things should be," talking about "how things actually are" makes the whole effort feel pretty much futile. Feminism—just like any other theoretical construct—can't just ignore the reality of human nature and its built-in drive toward hierarchy.

rowdyridge3 said:I am talking about RAPE, read what I'm writing. 🙄 If a woman is assaulted—meaning she didn't consent to any of it—it’s going to leave her with deep trauma. That impact is even heavier if she was a virgin beforehand.

Forget the legal technicalities for a second; I’m talking about how the victims actually feel. As far as I know, this is a psychology subforum, not a courtroom. My point is that we shouldn't be looking at punishments through a lens of equality because the actual damage caused isn't equal. When a man rapes a woman—whether she's a child or an adult—she carries that trauma for the rest of her life. It leaves a permanent scar. But if a 13-year-old boy is with a 42-year-old woman? He isn't walking away with those kinds of psychological scars. Even if we pretend there was some kind of coercion involved (which wasn't even the case here), a boy simply isn't going to suffer the same level of trauma as a girl.

Good grief, I haven't heard such total nonsense in a long time 😲